The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. The crime of embezzlement is not established on the ground that there was no intention of unlawful acquisition with respect to the E-car and the Nohbuk-gu one (hereinafter “instant car, etc.”) owned by the victim company, due to erroneous determination of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and there was a justifiable reason for not returning the instant car, etc.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 10 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. From the point of view of the Defendant’s assertion, there is room to view that the victim company unfairly terminated the management consulting agreement entered into with C (hereinafter “instant management consulting agreement”).

Therefore, the defendant did not have the intention of unlawful acquisition or embezzlement because there is a justifiable reason that the defendant refused to return the automobile of this case.

(C) The above management consulting contract was actually an employment contract between the victim company and the defendant, and the defendant was an employee under the Labor Standards Act of the victim company.

However, since the victim company's unfair termination of the above management consulting contract constitutes an unfair dismissal against the defendant, there is a justifiable reason for the defendant to refuse to return the automobile of this case.

B. Determination 1 on the illegality of the termination of the management consulting contract of this case) The so-called intention of unlawful acquisition in embezzlement refers to the intention of the person who keeps another's property without any justifiable title to dispose of it as the owner without any justifiable title. Thus, even if the return was refused, if the refusal was due to justifiable grounds for the refusal of the return, the intention of unlawful acquisition cannot be deemed to exist (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do126, Jul. 10, 1998; Supreme Court Decision 98Do126, Jul. 10, 1998).